Comments on: Computer-generated PR spam trying not to look like computer-generated PR spamhttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html
Brain candy for Happy MutantsMon, 15 Sep 2014 23:11:17 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Nathan Hornbyhttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1368423
Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:22:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1368423 Some people don’t have the resources or time to develop proper relationship’s in PR, it’s sad but true – especially with regards to smaller companies. I actually consider this an attempt to not be spam, it just shoots itself in the foot a bit.

I could be wrong, and it could be from some horrible SPAM monster, but that’s what I took from it.

]]>By: Nathan Hornbyhttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1368418
Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:20:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1368418 I think this is more likely too; if you’re emaling more than about 5 people with the same general message it makes sense to not do it manually, not necessarily evil or spammy, just efficient. This email is still silly of course, relying far too much on nav items making sense in this context.
]]>By: Nathan Hornbyhttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1368417
Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:18:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1368417 Creepy. I wonder how many email conversations are taking place this minute, between spambots with no human insight or intervention. Kinda fascinating, and sad, and weird.
]]>By: Nathan Hornbyhttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1368405
Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:12:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1368405 Agree, the old (cooltools?) ones I didn’t like, as they felt more like concealed ads, and I felt scammed. But the Watchismo ones are pretty harmless, and more obvious. And watches are cool, and watchismo’s watches are very cool.

I’m not sure that BoingBoing is a good advertising match for £50k watches, but that’s Watchismo’s problem, not mine. As long as someone is paying BoingBoing to exist then I’m happy.

I work in PR/marketing, and try to build genuine trustworthy professional relationships with journalists, because I give a shit. This sort of thing pisses me off. They’re not marketers, they’re spammers.

That said, as a hobbyist coder, I find this stuff really interesting :)

]]>By: Guesthttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1367420
Sun, 11 Mar 2012 00:29:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1367420the web? media.
]]>By: Dan Hubyhttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1367352
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 22:57:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1367352When I read the mail my first impression was that it was template based, not computer generated. A template that is designed for someone who is perhaps not familiar with the subject matter. Or perhaps a template that was used for a simple mail merge operation based on a simple database.
]]>By: Guillaume Dargaudhttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1367290
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:49:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1367290I’ve received simmilarly worded messages through a web form on my site, where they use a lot of contextual info. To the point that I started replying to a few of them before going “wait a minute, wtf is he talking about…”
I’m now convinced that artificial intelligence won’t be a military skynet run amok, but billions of spambots talking to each others.
]]>By: James Penrosehttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1367252
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:33:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1367252 Yeah, it almost always turns out badly for the damage controller.
]]>By: James Penrosehttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1367250
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:30:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1367250 The thing sure *reads* like it was computer generated.
“During SOPA, I found a particular interest in, “Infographic: Hollywood’s long war on technology.”” reads just like those useless ads you get for “partners” on Amazon: “For the best selection and widest variety of “The Great Gatsby” click here…”

Reading this one, I’d have sworn is was an auto-bot too. The comment was generic and could have applied to almost nay topic

And if the “infographic” was indeed a concealed ad, well, that’s pretty much clinches it since that ups the ante for being a form of spam.

Thing is, I’ve gotten actual replies (though with low comprehension) when I inquired further via e-mail. The ones I’ve gotten seem to point back to a particular graphic artist… but one who has even less web presence than my 14 year old.

I ran one, simply because it was about something I agreed with (and linked back to a site that I would have supported anyway). Not sure about the second, since it started with the exact same e-mail opening.

]]>By: Nathan Hornbyhttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1367126
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:35:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1367126Heh, kudos to Mark, the outside world thinks that ‘Gweek’ is a popular topic.

There was me thinking it was the boing boing podcast.

I’m looking forward to the amazon recommendations based on my interest in ‘Gweek’.

]]>By: mjfgateshttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1367111
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:00:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1367111 It’s true, the porn business really is slowing down.
]]>By: millie finkhttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1367103
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:45:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1367103I’ve been fooled by the ads for Reason TV. They look so much like regular posts.
]]>By: Palominohttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1367025
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 07:23:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1367025There’s a new “Investigative Reporting News Format” to debunk Kevin Trudeau’s get rich quick scheme. It seems Mary really did receive a million dollars from the government by reading a book . And everyone else seems to be successful by following just a few simple steps.

The reporter gets frustrated because she can’t find a liar or hired actor among the bunch.

People fall for it folks. I particularly despise the “Public Service Announcement” style ads, they should be illegal.

]]>By: spockohttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1367012
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 07:05:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1367012Personally I appreciate the, Advertiser Shout out. It’s honest and short. The watches Could be interesting enough to get coverage, but this way they know they will consistently be there.
]]>By: SoItBeginshttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1366994
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 06:29:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1366994You could start an ad campaign for all those 78-pound gweeklings out there. :D
]]>By: xyzzy123http://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1366892
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:01:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1366892Better yet, the tenth post from horse_PR at the moment is:

I.e., it’s a link to an infographic from Blueglass.com! This proves one of the following:

1. Rob is, in fact, horse_PR and is playing a massive practical joke.

2. Blueglass.com is actually a wholly-owned subsidiary of horse_PR.

3. Rob, horse_PR and Blueglass.com are all one and the same. This whole kerfuffle is merely linkbait to generate additional traffic for BoingBoing, Blueglass.com and horse_PR at the same time. Genius!

]]>By: Rob Beschizzahttp://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/computer-generated-pr-spam-try.html#comment-1366806
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:57:00 +0000http://boingboing.net/?p=148325#comment-1366806ESL means you mistakenly include inaccurate content descriptors in pitches? Also, the author’s posted comment is excellently written — except for the part that has a second round of inaccurate content descriptors.

Nice try, no cigar infographic with numbers supplied by Imperial Tobacco for you.